Self-ownership

[Britannic Realms]

Are you asking if I own my body? If you are, then my answer is: of course I own my own body.

Why?

My body is the physical representation of my consciousness; it is me. How could I not own it?

[Conscentia]

Why?

My body is the physical representation of my consciousness; it is me. How could I not own it?

That is false. Your consciousness is a higher level cognitive function. It is a function of your brain. Your body is not a representation of anything other than itself.

[Arkolon]

It is possible to own legitimately without legal institutions, then.

You cannot own at all without legal institutions because ownership is a legal institution, ergo you cannot own either legitimately or illegitimately if there is no ownership.

Define "legal", or "law".

[Conscentia]

You cannot own at all without legal institutions because ownership is a legal institution, ergo you cannot own either legitimately or illegitimately if there is no ownership.

Define "legal", or "law".

I already have, in a post you did not respond to.

Refrain from being snarky, but "it" is the relationship between that which is self-aware and the corporeal mechanism upon which it is supported.

If you want a term to describe it, I think that it would be "biological naturalism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism

I like these phrases I learnt from Crash Course Psychology: "Everything psychological is biological", and "The mind is what the brain does".

What are you trying to say re: informal law?

A legal code is an explicit and objectified set of socially defined rules. For example, a society may have the rule "Murder is illegal" and one would be able to objectively determine whether or not the law has been violated.
Formal law refers to codified rules and instructions, while informal law refers to non-codified rules and instructions.

Yes, it does entitle you to whatever you mix with it. Labour is an abstract extension of the self that allows the self to physically mix themselves with the property. It is how property is legitimately accumulated.

That is false. Without law there are no entitlements.
All labour means in nature is that you have redistributed the energy & entropy in the universe.

[Arkolon]

That's where it went.

What are you trying to say re: informal law?

A legal code is an explicit and objectified set of socially defined rules. For example, a society may have the rule "Murder is illegal" and one would be able to objectively determine whether or not the law has been violated.
Formal law refers to codified rules and instructions, while informal law refers to non-codified rules and instructions.

Is it formal law if one person rights the laws for themselves? How about two people? And three? At which point does informal law formalise itself?

[Conscentia]

That's where it went.

A legal code is an explicit and objectified set of socially defined rules. For example, a society may have the rule "Murder is illegal" and one would be able to objectively determine whether or not the law has been violated.
Formal law refers to codified rules and instructions, while informal law refers to non-codified rules and instructions.

Is it formal law if one person rights the laws for themselves? How about two people? And three? At which point does informal law formalise itself?

"Socially defined".
One cannot write laws for oneself alone. Groups containing a few individuals rarely constitute a society, though it's not impossible. I presently see no reason why such a group could not codify law to govern their group. Of-coarse, they may lack enforceability, or a larger society may not recognise the legal autonomy of said group and enforce it's own laws onto the group.

[Twilight Imperium]

These objects cannot own because they do not possess that which allows them to own.

Why is a mind necessary to own?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

These objects cannot own because they do not possess that which allows them to own.

Why is a mind necessary to own?

Because ownership is a concept.

[Arkolon]

That's where it went.

Is it formal law if one person rights the laws for themselves? How about two people? And three? At which point does informal law formalise itself?

"Socially defined".
One cannot write laws for oneself alone. Groups containing a few individuals rarely constitute a society, though it's not impossible. I presently see no reason why such a group could not codify law to govern their group. Of-coarse, they may lack enforceability, or a larger society may not recognise the legal autonomy of said group and enforce it's own laws onto the group.

So at which point, then, in percentage terms?

[Arkolon]

Why is a mind necessary to own?

Because ownership is a concept.

Thank you; that's right.

[Conscentia]

"Socially defined".
One cannot write laws for oneself alone. Groups containing a few individuals rarely constitute a society, though it's not impossible. I presently see no reason why such a group could not codify law to govern their group. Of-coarse, they may lack enforceability, or a larger society may not recognise the legal autonomy of said group and enforce it's own laws onto the group.

So at which point, then, in percentage terms?

A percentage of what? What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

[Arkolon]

So at which point, then, in percentage terms?

A percentage of what? What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

A percentage of the society. Societies aren't defined very easily, and are mostly interconnecting. How many people, as a percentage of the society, would it take for a law to become formalised, if a written law between two people, that acts in the very same way as formal law does, is not considered formal law-- and why that exact number?

[Salandriagado]

No, I'm looking at your actual proof. Proofs don't exist in context. A proof is either logically valid, or it isn't. There's no middle ground here. What you are actually presenting isn't a proof at all: it's a (bad) argument, formatted to look like a proof. It's just a very long way of saying "I'm right because I say I am".

Technically, you only looked at half of my proof, considering the axiomatic list that talk about A being made up of B isn't proof on its own. It's backed by the context.

No, "proof" is a very specific word. A proof is a list of statements, each of which is either designated an axiom or a logical consequence of the statements going before it, one of which is designated the conclusion. They don't have "contexts": they have explicitly mentioned axioms.

[Conscentia]

A percentage of what? What are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

A percentage of the society. Societies aren't defined very easily, and are mostly interconnecting. How many people, as a percentage of the society, would it take for a law to become formalised, if a written law between two people, that acts in the very same way as formal law does, is not considered formal law-- and why that exact number?

Well, looking at the Wikipedia article I conclude that a society, in the context of our usage, is a superorganism outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, characterised by persistent interpersonal relationships.

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

If two people were to successfully separate from any other superorganism to form a distinct superorganism, they could formulate formal law to govern their tiny society. However, it is doubtful that only two humans could even form a superorganism.

Any objections to this conclusion?

[Sociobiology]

3 is not a given and does not logically follow from the former.
also you do not have a corporeal mechanism, you ARE a corporeal mechanism.

... that is self-aware.

which might matter if you had a non circular argument for why being self aware necessitates ownership.

[Twilight Imperium]

Why is a mind necessary to own?

Because ownership is a concept.

Thus you might argue that a mind is necessary to recognize ownership, but not why it's required to own something.

[Sociobiology]

which still in no way implies ownership. unless you are saying control equals ownership which you have already said you aren't.

No, it really is ownership.

only if you take ownership to be the same thing as control, which was already demonstrated to be full of holes and you yourself said was not true.

and again, mind body, not dichotomous.

Where is it not ownership in the analogy?

it doesn't matter what it is in the analogy, because it is an analogy.

well mind and brain, and I won't be taking any dualist arguments seriously since it runs in opposition of all relevant science. having a argument based on dualism is the same as starting by saying "Because the earth is only 6 thousand years old..."

The dualist argument is easy to explain and a little harder to translate into relevant monism. If I start "because the earth is only 6,000 years old, that means I was born in the 6,000th -x year in time", the conclusion that y - x = year of birth since the beginning of the planet, where y = the age of the world, then "because the earth is only 6,000 years old" isn't objectively a wrong way to begin an argument.

yes it is, it begins with a refuted assumption, it lacks truth and thus is unsound.

Similarly, my argument does work in this way. I began with dualist arguments, and have since translated them to to monist arguments for factual relevancy.

now can you fix their lack of validity and truth.

Do you mean designed?
If so, then you are contradicting yourself since you claimed it was the presence of a mind that granted ownership, since hylomorphism didn't.
If not then I have no idea what you are talking about.

We weren't discussing ownership. You confused posts

the entire thread is about ownership.
I am only responding to the points you are using to support or define ownership. in this case your definition of functional, which is how you decide what can own, so It does have to do with ownership.

[Sociobiology]

So it isn't about ownership, it's about having a mind/soul/life.

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

so far, only if you take it as an unfounded assumption.

[Zottistan]

[double post]

[Zottistan]

That doesn't work both ways. The fact that I think proves that I am. The fact that I am doesn't prove that I think. A tree is. Does it think?

I know these things should be in order, but
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.

Not all of the body is necessary for supporting thought. You don't need hands to survive and support your thinking mechanism, for example. Does that mean we don't own our hands? They aren't part of the relative matter of that which is capable of thought.

Our hands are connected to the relative matter of that which is capable of thought. Going back to our master-slave relationship, being a master of a slave entitles you to that slave as well as all that is produced by that slave; you could make your slave mix their labour with some land and that land would be yours, not theirs, as they are property: they cannot own.

Only under certain understandings of "owning" the slave.

But that's not what "belonging" means. Being a constituent of something doesn't mean it owns you.

One, that is one that is capable of thought (and therefore can own), cannot be owned. Something that cannot think being a constituent of that which can think entitles that which can think to its constituent parts. The cells that make me belong to me. The organelle that constitute a cell do not belong to the cell; they belong to me.

This doesn't explain anything. I asked how being constituted of something makes it belong to you, and you basically said that being constituted of something makes it belong to you.

"Owning" something is only owning the rights to something under certain artificial institutions of owning.

Could you give me an alternative institution of owning?

We did this already, remember? Ownership as property, for an example.

Or no set-in-stone institution of ownership, which is what I subscribe to.

[Arkolon]

Technically, you only looked at half of my proof, considering the axiomatic list that talk about A being made up of B isn't proof on its own. It's backed by the context.

No, "proof" is a very specific word. A proof is a list of statements, each of which is either designated an axiom or a logical consequence of the statements going before it, one of which is designated the conclusion. They don't have "contexts": they have explicitly mentioned axioms.

That wasn't my whole proof. I never even called it proof. You're shoving words into my mouth; you're the only one who's upset because the axiomatic list doesn't satisfy your definition of the word "proof", telling me that it isn't, therefore, proof. My question is, honestly: so what? It's not proof. Stop looking for proof in something that is not proof. It is, quite evidently, an explanation of the context above the alternatively-formatted text you call "proof".

[Arkolon]

A percentage of the society. Societies aren't defined very easily, and are mostly interconnecting. How many people, as a percentage of the society, would it take for a law to become formalised, if a written law between two people, that acts in the very same way as formal law does, is not considered formal law-- and why that exact number?

Well, looking at the Wikipedia article I conclude that a society, in the context of our usage, is a superorganism outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, characterised by persistent interpersonal relationships.

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

If two people were to successfully separate from any other superorganism to form a distinct superorganism, they could formulate formal law to govern their tiny society. However, it is doubtful that only two humans could even form a superorganism.

Any objections to this conclusion?

This doesn't answer my question. You're repeating yourself.

[Arkolon]

... that is self-aware.

which might matter if you had a non circular argument for why being self aware necessitates ownership.

No: being self-aware necessitates a body, and the bond is ownership.

[Conscentia]

Well, looking at the Wikipedia article I conclude that a society, in the context of our usage, is a superorganism outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, characterised by persistent interpersonal relationships.

The law of a society can be said to be formalised when a codified legal code is accepted by said society. That is, the enforcement of the aforementioned legal code is sufficiently successful as to regulate the behaviour of the superorganism.

If two people were to successfully separate from any other superorganism to form a distinct superorganism, they could formulate formal law to govern their tiny society. However, it is doubtful that only two humans could even form a superorganism.

Any objections to this conclusion?

This doesn't answer my question. You're repeating yourself.

It does answer your question. I defined society for you, and told you at what point law is formalised. I just ignored your nonsense about percentages. There is no percentage in the definitions.

[Arkolon]

No, it really is ownership.

only if you take ownership to be the same thing as control, which was already demonstrated to be full of holes and you yourself said was not true.

and again, mind body, not dichotomous.

Ownership is acquired first by control; ownership of one thing is then traded with other people for the ownership of other things. I mixed my labour with these raw materials I bought myself (the ownership of) to make this product, and I will trade you ownership of the product for the ownership of a certain amount of money we both agree on. You're assuming that ownership is always control-- no: ownership is first acquired by control of previously unowned property.

The dualist argument is easy to explain and a little harder to translate into relevant monism. If I start "because the earth is only 6,000 years old, that means I was born in the 6,000th -x year in time", the conclusion that y - x = year of birth since the beginning of the planet, where y = the age of the world, then "because the earth is only 6,000 years old" isn't objectively a wrong way to begin an argument.

yes it is, it begins with a refuted assumption, it lacks truth and thus is unsound.

Y is a refuted assumption needed to prove that Y + X, where X is an objectively true fact, is equal to an objectively true conclusion. Y is used because it is easier to formulate and demonstrate when arguing for it, but does not yield an objectively true conclusion when added to X because Y is not an objectively true fact. Conveniently, Y can be replaced by Y', which is an objectively true fact that yields an objectively true conclusion, but demonstrating and formulating an argument with Y' takes too much time and is subject to language and communication constraints for whatever reason. If I tell you that Y + X = self-ownership is objectively true, and I openly let you know that Y is a refuted assumption but can be replaced with Y', then Y + X = self-ownership is true, because, practically, Y = Y'.

We weren't discussing ownership. You confused posts

the entire thread is about ownership.

The post wasn't. There are threadjacks of all sizes, and they sometimes come as subsets of individual posts, which our discussion was.